Today is a sad anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is all the more sad due to the success of the Chinese regime to wipe out memories of the massacre in the country while crushing dissent. It falls to the rest of the world to keep the memory alive in the hope that truth, like water, will find its way through the most formidable walls.

On June 4th, the Chinese regime massacred students and citizens who gathered to demand freedom. Some estimates put the death toll in the thousands.

China has implemented an Orwellian rating system for citizens — tying their good behavior scores to the use of basic services and perks. Young people know little of the massacre and frankly may care even less. All of the young people who I have spoken with from China describe an apolitical generation with little interest in the massacre. One such Chinese person working in the United States as an au pair simply told us that she does not believe it ever happened because the government would not do such a thing.

There will be a Congressional hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “Tiananmen at 30: Examining the Evolution of Repression in China,” at 10:00 a.m. – Noon

Some 23 Human rights organizations will hold at the Capitol a rally starting at 1:30 p.m.

Here is a list of activities for June Fourth [Tiananmen Square Massacre] 30th Anniversary (including events throughout the United States) (Human Rights in China, 30 May 2019)

The true identity of the “tank man” remains unresolved but his fate is assumed. (There were others who stood before tanks on that day). The British tabloid Sunday Express identified the man as Wang Weilin, 19, who was later charged with “political hooliganism” and “attempting to subvert” the nation. Like thousands of others, he disappeared with virtually all evidence the greatest fight for liberty in the history of modern China.

These events help guarantee that China cannot erase the memory of these incredibly brave people who gave their lives for basic human rights.

514 thoughts on “Tiananmen Square 30 Years Later”

Comment navigation

Elderly Man Who Shot Two Burglars In His Home Charged With Felony Over Inherited Gun

“…Stolarczyk is charged with felony gun possession because investigators believe he used his deceased father’s gun, which he never registered to himself, to kill the two suspected intruders. …

The incident happened in Deerfield, New York, about 40 miles east of Syracuse, in Oneida county. …

To make matters more infuriating, it turns out that the now-room-temp pair had previously robbed Stolarczyk. But Oneida County District Attorney Scott McNamara is shifting the blame for the robberies to Stolarczyk, calling him a hoarder and implying that he was just asking to be robbed. …

The handgun was checked, and Stolarczyk’s dad purchased it legally from a local dealer, the DA said. …

Stolarczyk has been released from jail on some form of pre trial release, and his next court date is August 5th. However, the state has now seized the home and Stolarczyk has no place to go. WKTV reports …”

Its being reported quite differently in the local outlets. It’s New York. They overcharge, then negotiate a plea. It’s a reasonable inference that county health inspectors or the municipal building inspector was called in by sheriff’s deputies and said inspectors declared the structure uninhabitable. You can see from the photo that the garage is collapsing. It’s somewhat puzzling as that house looks to be one story, but the homeowner’s account of the incident (provisionally confirmed by the DA) is that the pair were coming ‘up the stairs’.

He’s lived in that abode for > 25 years. It appears his father and perhaps his mother lived there as well. His mother died in 1996 and his father in 2014. Papa was a retired firefighter and his son was listed as his only survivor. It’s a reasonable inference that Ronald Stolarczyk has never functioned all that well, may be living on SSI or Disability, and that the authorities in Oneida County want him out of that house for his own safety.

The DA has been quite clear that their provisional judgment is that the shooting is non-justiciable, pending the results of the forensic tests. He’s being charged for a weapons violation only at this point. The smart money says a public defender will negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor charge (and the DA does indicate that’s the usual resolution of these sorts of weapons charges).

This guy is 64 years old and if he has a rap sheet, no one’s discovered it yet. It’s a reasonable inference he’s of limited intelligence and a decrepit ruin. If he receives anything but a token penalty, I’d be extremely surprised.

The Trump´s DoJ is so desperate to build its case against Assange that it is using as star witness a sociopath, convicted conman and sex criminal, involved in an FBI entrapment operation against WikiLeaks

Disgraced DOJ official Bruce Ohr was given thousands of dollars in bonuses during the Russia investigation, according to newly released documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
Ohr received a total of $42,520 in performance bonuses during the Trump-Russia investigation:

“The documents show that on November 13, 2016, Ohr was given a performance award of $28,000. This was during the time of his deep involvement in the highly controversial Justice Department surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign. The bonus was nearly double the $14,250 performance award he was given on November 29, 2015.”

Both Ohr and his wife, Nellie have extensive ties to opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, which hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier:

Judicial Watch uncovered emails from Ohr showing that he remained in regular contact with former British spy and Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI in November 2016 for revealing to the media his position as an FBI confidential informant. The records show that Ohr served as a go-between for Steele by passing along information to “his colleagues” on matters relating to Steele’s activities. Ohr also set up meetings with Steele, regularly talked to him on the telephone and provided him assistance in dealing with situations Steele was confronting with the media.

Nellie Ohr worked as a contractor for Fusion GPS and conducted research on the Trump family and Russia. She also worked reportedly as a contractor for the CIA for up to six years.

Keep in mind that salaries for federal attorneys is way below scale, and especially given the competition for these jobs. Ohr is Harvard College grad (physics) and Harvard Law graduate.

“Federal Employee Awards

Agencies have authority to design extensive employee awards programs that include cash awards, honorary awards, informal recognition awards, and time-off awards. Agencies can give these awards to employees to recognize employee and group performance, and can design incentive programs with awards granted because an individual or a group achieved pre-established goals.

Cash awards and bonuses do not increase an employee’s basic pay for purposes of retirement, life insurance, pay retention and Thrift Savings Plan benefits, although quality step increases do. Award payments are subject to the limitations on total pay – See Pay Limits….”

Compensation for lawyers is bimodally distributed, as if it were two different professions. The thing is, the mega-compensation goes to BigLaw partners, who make up about 10% of all practicing attorneys. Median annual cash compensation for attorneys (not icl. law clerks) is about $120,000 as we speak. In the economy at large, earnings-related fringes add a 15% increment and fringes insensitive to earnings another $6000 or so. If that applies in the legal profession, median total compensation for attorneys is around $144,000.

The Congressional Budget Office did a study of pay and benefits for different classes of federal workers, delineating according to educational attainment. Total compensation for the body of federal employees holding first-professional or research degrees averaged $82 an hour in 2017, or about $157,000 per year.

Absurd doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Most attorneys who become AUSA’s or other DOJ positions leave after about 5 years and clean up in private practice. It is highly competitive to get these positions, which reflects that fact as well as the appeal of working on important cases and issues.

“Average Salary: $95,000
Expected Lifetime Earnings: $3,966,060

Attorneys working for the Department of Justice make a starting salary of about $55,700, higher if you have experience working as a clerk (source).

Federal prosecutors working as assistant U.S. attorneys (AUSAs) make between $49,000 and $142,000 (source).”

Most attorneys who become AUSA’s or other DOJ positions leave after about 5 years and clean up in private practice. It is highly competitive to get these positions, which reflects that fact as well as the appeal of working on important cases and issues.

In your imagination only. Your figure on ‘expected lifetime earnings’ is an ass pull. No clue what method they used to calculate that. Let’s suppose it’s a fairly crude one. Cannot help but note that people’s mean number of years of f/t employment is currently running at 33.5 years of their lifetime. The average person logs about 5 years ‘ere age 25. You’re paid $475,000 in five years as a federal prosecutor, which leaves you an addition 23 years in private practice So, they’re expecting you’ll be paid $152,000 a year during the rest of your career. Add fringes and you’re up to about $180,000 a year. Which improves on current federal compensation by 15%. (In return for the loss of job security and having to cope with income flux).

Highly competitive? Waal, the fellow I knew who landed one was a very appealing chap who had a satisfactory record at the state law school and then put in three years as an appellate law clerk. He later worked as a public prosecutor in state court and I think has had to move to private practice as the DAs job eluded him. I liked him as a person very much, and I suspect he’s a good lawyer. Notable, though, in his life, has been family connections. He had them, and good people skills.

DSS, I looked at Anon’s numbers so I went to the website of Shmoop where Anon got his numbers. First I had to look up ‘what is Shmoop’. Their answer was “Here at Shmoop, we work for kids, not just the bottom line.”. Intellectually Anon is a kid so I figured the website was an appropriate level for him. Next, I went to Shmoop to see how and where Shmoop got their numbers. On each line I clicked on source and was taken to a Harvard Law School website and then a different website. I did a few and was taken to other websites but I didn’t see the numbers that were on shmoop. I’m not saying they are not there but to make sure they weren’t I would virtually have to read a book. There were other statements but the funny thing is that from what I read none of the articles told us how any calculations were made.

This is Anon’s problem. He feels he only needs to find words that agree with him and nothing more. I suppose Shmoop thinks the calculations might be too difficult for kids so that is understandable. The only problem is Anon is not a kid.

My data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office, if anyone’s interested.

An actual figure for lifetime earnings incorporates a model of the trajectory of nominal earnings over several decades and will incorporates a discount rate to produce a lump sum. It’s quite speculative.

DSS, just for kicks, after reading Woody Allen’s comment that he wanted to be a mailman, I took the average wage of a mailman and compared it to an internal medicine doctor since Woody Allen is Jewish and his mother likely wanted him to be a doctor. I don’t remember all the mechanics but I figured out the hourly wage of the mailman, overtime wage, holiday wage, health insurance and retirement funding at the time (better than now) and placed that into the yearly hours worked by private internists owning their own offices including night call, weekends and holidays. I took the benefits and converted them into cash. (I used an assumption that the mailman worked a ?60 hour week plus nightcall and used the overtime pay schedule etc. for above the 40 hour week.) When I finished, I found, based on the my totally inexact calculations, that the mailman was a better deal and that Woody Allen’s mother should reconsider what she wanted her son to do. Of course Allen did neither and went on to earn far more than either the internist or the mailman.

I think you made a math error there. As we speak, cash compensation for postal workers (a mean of $51,000 a year) is precisely the average for the labor market as a whole and 1/4 the mean cash compensation for physicians. As for working hours, those for medical residents are commonly hideous and some in primary care work quite long hours. The mean for all physicians is about 55 hours per week, or about 1/2 again that of the average worker. Add the fringes in, of course, the compensation of postal workers looks better to a degree.

The problem with the Postal Service has long been general inefficiency (puttering clerks), banker’s hours for most letter carriers, and underfunded and overly generous retirement programs. I’m recalling a clerk in my local post office hired in 1968. He retired in 1999 at the age of 55. That’s policy. I don’t begrudge him anything, but the policy is witless. Ditto the policies which put the median retirement age for schoolteachers at 59. Soldiers, uniformed police, firefighters, farm labor, and construction workers should be earning early retirement credit, not postal clerks and schoolteachers. And their retirement programs need to be actuarially-sound.

DSS, perhaps, but this was years ago so maybe not and maybe you are using a different methodology. You can’t use the multiple of what the postal worker’s average salary was, relating it directly in comparison. As I explained, though perhaps not sufficiently, I was dealing with a postal worker who got paid extra for work over 40 hours and at holidays. Today I don’t remember the salary bump for those unusual hours. On average the postal worker retires after so many hours so the benefits becoming a lump sum are cashed in after the average is met and the benefits acrue again being added to his lifetime earnings. The above 40 hours a week also lead to increases based on salary times the multiple for overtime, weekend, etc. I think at the time the number of hours estimated for private physicians (internal medicine not the average of all physicians) was 60+ but I think I used 60. Internal medicine physicians in private practice used to work much longer hours than most assumed and even worked weekends and nights. The lifetime earnings of the postal worker rapidly rose outside of direct proportion to average income.

This was not a serious calculation because it would never occur. It was more to put things in a proper perspective.

Take note DSS and I do not entirely agree on everything but we don’t get into a drunken rage like you seem to do when there is a difference of opinion. Now go back to bed and ask the nurse to give you another shot of Thorazine.

This is doofus, I’ll note you pull stuff from your butt regularly, so I’ll match my data with yours any day. I also have personal knowledge about what AUSA’a make and can max out at, and the fact that it is often a stepping stone to jobs with salaries double their salaries there.

Are you unable to read? I didn’t say whether your numbers were true or not rather I commented on the site which is at your level of knowedge (a child’s) and the fact that their references to the actual numbers didn’t directly provide them. In the short review there was no explanation of how the numbers were calculated. Your type of mindset at best can only deal with averages and that is not sufficient.

Allan,
Take heed of Anon/JanF’s “personal knowledge” on this issue. Add that to the list that they “both” have “personal knowledge” of someone who interviewed with Mueller, have “personally known ” Bernie Sanders for c.40 years, and have insider knowledge of the workings of the FBI.
I sure hope I haven’t left anything out about the claims of anonymous anon/ JanF..

This is doofus, we are talking about federal attorneys, AUSA and DOJ lawyers, not state attorneys. Since you don’t have a clue, let me help you out. These are very competitive positions and for the reasons I I gave above.

Sure it’s “all true”🙄😏, whether you’re anonymously making those claims as JanF or posting as “Anon”. Even though trolls and sock puppet are a dime a dozen, it’s still somewhat amusing to see them present inflated claims of having an “in” with the FBI, knowing Bernie Sanders personally for 40 years, knowing someone who interviewed with Mueller, and having inside knowledge of the system of federal attorneys.

I can speak with some knowledge on all these subjects because those experiences are all true. I would note however, that I have not spoken or seen Bernie in 40+ years though one of his very best friends and associates is someone who visits with us on his travels about once a year. I don’t have any “in” with the FBI other than being very close with an AUSA (they interviewed personally with Mueller and worked on a previous Independent Counsel investigation) who does work with them all the time (and has received an FBI award), is a very good friend of many, and I have met some of them. I’m bragging sort of, but I didn’t accomplish anything in any of this except knowing some interesting people.

Again, based on what metric? Jimmy Carter had all sorts of ideas for reforming the civil service. They fell victim to the public employee unions working through their catamites in Congress. What he conceived of as ‘merit’ awards in the ‘Senior Executive Service’ decayed into boondoggles before he’d left office.

Ohr definitely met Anon’s quota for being a dishonest individual. Things are getting closer. Take note that below Anon is actually making an excuse for dishonesty. “Keep in mind that salaries for federal attorneys is way below scale”. In other words lower salary permits those attornies to be dishonest. That is not me speaking, that is Anon speaking from the heart. Then he finds written material that is not consistent with today’s facts ” Republican scrutiny and conservative conspiracy theories” were responsible for the problem.

Anon demonstrates no intellect what so ever, but DSS, I am the lucky one. Anon no longer addresses me. His small brain doesn’t realize the benefit he has provided to me.

““Keep in mind that salaries for federal attorneys is way below scale”. In other words lower salary permits those attornies to be dishonest. That is not me speaking, that is Anon speaking from the heart. Then he finds written material that is not consistent with today’s facts ” Republican scrutiny and conservative conspiracy theories” were responsible for the problem.”

All of this is true. Take note all Anon can say is “makes no sense”. That is understandable when the responder has a pea sized brain

No, it’s not dishonest behavior. He benefits from the rents public employee unions have incorporated into public policy.

You also seem to fancy he sacrificed something to be in the public sector. Not everyone is cut out for BigLaw, even among Harvard Law School’s graduates. You want a fine example of that, look at Barack Obama.

Most attorneys join the DOJ at a young age, so some implied failure at “Big Law” by absurd is ….. absurd. Their motivation could be the experience which they will later cash in on at a big firm, or the draw of interesting and compelling work. Those who stay – like Ohr so far – may not feel they have sacrificed anything except the pay checks Harvard Law grads are almost guaranteed, and which start at where DOJ attorneys end – they are capped at something like $150k with leaving expense compensation if they are say in SF vs Omaha.

Most BigLaw associates wash out. Some of them go into the public sector.

You don’t need to wash out to know when you’re not cut out for something. Your presupposition has been that they could have done this or that for better compensation. That may be true in some cases. Emphasis on some.

“Bruce Genesoke Ohr is a United States Department of Justice official. A former associate deputy attorney general and former director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF),[1] as of February 2018 Ohr was working in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.[2] He is an expert on transnational organized crime and has spent most of his career overseeing gang and racketeering-related prosecutions,[3] including Russian organized crime.[4]

Ohr was little-known until 2018, when he became the subject of Republican scrutiny and conservative conspiracy theories[5][6][7][8] over his purported involvement in starting the probe on Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was criticized by President Donald Trump, who accused Ohr of abusing his access to sensitive information.[5][6] No evidence has emerged that Ohr was involved in the initiation of the Russia probe or that Ohr mishandled sensitive information.[6][7] According to a comprehensive review by ABC News, Ohr “had little impact on the FBI’s growing probe into Trump and his associates.”[3]…”

Close to half the comments on this thread are written from a Cold War perspective. One would think the communist threat was very real and menacing.

Yet Russia under Putin is an oligarchy. China too is all about crony capitalism (with an authoritarian government). Both powers are keen to let billionaires operate as feudal lords. That doesn’t sound like socialism to any American born after 1960.

To anyone paying attention we entered the Global Age around the mid 1970’s. At that point Japanese cars and electronics became the norm in America. From that point onward good paying industrial jobs began to disappear throughout the United States.

Labor Unions have lost a shocking amount of clout in the past 50 years. Gone are the days when politicians courted cigar-chomping Union bosses like George Meany. No union leader has that power anymore.

Even here in Hollywood unions find themselves increasingly weak. Getting into the union is no longer crucial for work in the business. Why? Technology has everything to do with it.

No job is safe anymore. Between globalization, automation and artificial intelligence we’re veering towards an age where robots build robots. Social Scientists of the late 21st Century will be largely concerned with social programs to support the masses. Even the most educated could find themselves competing with robotic intelligence.

Therefore it astounds me that Trumpers on this thread live in mortal fear of communism. And coincidently it reflects the views of Libertarian Fundamentalists.

Libertarian thinking is so rigid that concern for the less fortunates is considered wrong-headed. If one is intellectually committed to free-market principals then ‘any’ social program is viewed with suspicion. ‘Business always knows better than government’; or so we are told.

Those suspicions translate into ‘fear of the red menace’; a puritanical view where no one can backslide. From that perspective one must link socialism to communism accompanied by references to Stalin’s atrocities. One has to strike that level of tragedy to accommodate Libertarian correctness.

Current PH – you don’t seem to understand. You keep mocking concern about a Socialist economy in America, while clearly not understanding what that means. This word soup you posted makes no sense.

The USSR fell, and has a different government now, albeit still without robust individual rights.

Communist China added some capitalism because, as stated before, Communism doesn’t work economically. As I also stated, capitalism is only as fair as the system on which it operates. Being an authoritarian, abusive State to its citizens, China’s capitalism is also abusive to workers. Individuals have few rights in China. The most fair economic policy in the world is one in which capitalism operates over a structure of strong individual rights.

I’ve explained this repeatedly. What are you unclear about? You keep repeating essentially the same erroneous conclusions.

Also, what is a “Trumper” in your mind? I defend or criticize Trump as the facts call for. Derogatory comments towards those who disagree with you politically is ad hominem, a common form of false logic that is used to avoid reasoned debate.

Hollywood has no moral high ground to stand on. It outsources much of its FX work overseas, where workers get exactly zero of the employee benefits they tout in public in the US. FX workers endure horrific overtime hours under constant threat that their jobs will be outsourced. Meanwhile, overpaid, pampered movie stars get plush trailers and dictate the snacks available, for millions of dollars just to pretend to be Presidents, action heroes, aliens, soldiers, or other characters more interesting than their real lives. A more hypocritical herd of people never existed.

I will say that the GoT crew earned their bread in the Long Night filming of that extraordinary battle scene. Now, that’s real work.

Libertarians do notbelieve that concern for the less fortunate is “wrong-headed.” They merely believe in personal liberty above most other things.I disagree with Libertarians on most foreign policy. Libertarianism has what, exactly, to do with the responsible concern about the rise of Socialism, which would the prosperity of the West?

No one advocates removing the individual rights that protect workers from abuse. Straw man argument.

You know, this reminds me of pre-Nazi Germany, when critics warned against all the goodies promised by the German Socialist Party. That platform was so eerily similar to Progressivism today that a mischievous researcher managed to get it published, verbatim, in a feminist magazine.

If we don’t call out this garbage, we’ll be stuck with a Green New Deal, the cost of food will skyrocket because it will not be able to be transported, people will be not allowed to fly anymore, and we will devolve into Venezuela, fighting over toilet paper and a handful of beans.

No civilization has ever lasted forever. At one point, Ancient Greece was the pinnacle of human civilization. Rome was the unbeatable civilization. They all ground to dust, arguably from within. If the Left persists in destroying what makes America prosperous, one day it might succeed. It stubbornly proposes the very same policies that wrecked other countries, and generated this constant flow of immigration here to the US.

“The most fair economic policy in the world is one in which capitalism operates over a structure of strong individual rights”.

That sounds high-minded, Karen. But here in the United States, inequality is now a major threat to individual rights. Many would argue that the Supreme Court’s Citizens-United decision opened the floodgates of dark money into U.S. politics. Consequently a network of billionaire political donors, the Koch Bros Network, for instance, has a disproportionate influence on legislative polices at the expense of individuals.

In Wisconsin, for instance, The Koch Bros Network used its poltical clout to ram through a number of legislative changes that the people may not have honestly wanted. The Koch Bros were never a presence in Wisconsin until they bought the Fort Howard Paper Mill, a giant plant in Green Bay.

Here in California, The Koch Bros tried to push Right-To-Work legislation that was soundly defeated. However a follow-up investigation revealed that The Koch Bros used a chain a proxy groups to launder money used to support that Right-To-Work initiative. In other words, Californians had to vote on an initiative that few in the state actually ‘wanted’. But an outside group of billionaires was able to put it on California’s ballot.

The point is that capitalism can be very threatening to individual rights if not properly regulated by a muscular government.

Peter, that is why you insist that women can be men and men can be women. Under Stalin all people were equal, equally miserable. In the US all people are equal under the law. That is a difference that apparently you cannot understand.

You get all upset at the Koch’s putting legislation on the ballot that gets defeated, but you aren’t the least bit concerned about vote harvesting and illegal voting that doesn’t reflect the will of the voters.

“inequality is now a major threat to individual rights.“ Why is “inequality” a threat to individual rights, guaranteed by the Constitution?

If you are talking about inequality of outcome, i.e. economic success, there are many reasons for why someone would be better off than another. For example, married parents emphasize the importance of education. Their child studies hard, does all his homework, and attends class regularly. While he plays sports, it is not allowed to interfere with school. He doesn’t do drugs. Doesn’t drink. Raises his hand in class. Does his homework on time. Studies for tests. Doesn’t get into trouble. He goes to college, and then medical school to become a licensed physician with a nice income.

He’s teased by the cool guys who skip class, their parents tell them not to worry about school. They go to parties instead of studying. Smoke weed through high school. By the time they graduate, they have poor reading skills, disrespect authority, can’t express themselves well either verbally or written. They attend neither a trade school nor college. They drift from one entry level job to another, never progressing to the managerial level, which requires respect and discipline.

One day, the group of no-accounts, going nowhere fast in life, are hanging out on a street corner, unemployed, when they see this well dressed doctor drive by in a sleek new car. And they say, that’s not fair. That guy has what we should have. This is income inequality right there. That’s not fair. Let’s go demonstrate for the redistribution of wealth. That doctor should keep working hard, but give us enough of what he earned so that we all have the same, equal, money.

You can have equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity, but you can’t have both. The only way to dissolve income inequality is to enact a system of government in which literally nothing you do will get you ahead. Work hard, don’t work hard, everyone has the same money. No one “earns” anything but instead receive universal charity from the government, which now owns the products of their labor. It’s a nihilistic existence. It’s not fair. Why work at all if there’s going to be income equality no matter what you do?

A more fair and just system is to take care of the poor, and assist those who have fallen on hard times. There needs to be consequences to the healthy who could work, but refuse to.

Karen ignores the fact that wages for the lower and middle classes have been essentially stagnant for 20 years while productivity of US workers has increased. We also work longer hours and with less vacation time than most of those in other developed countries, and all this while the upper %s of Americans have carved out a higher proportion of national wealth. for themselves. That is not an accident, or function of “poor life choices” – only so many of us can get into med school or inherent hundreds of millions – but of the busting of unions and increased tax breaks for the wealthiest, all goals of the GOP, as well as the loss of jobs through automation or world trade

I by no means ignore wage stagnation. Why would you say that? I comment on the drivers frequently. Here’s a good reason why wages stagnated in CA. The state is openly hostile to businesses, and by extension, employers. It consistently ranks as the worst state in the union to do business. Many employers leave. Politicians manage to chase away good jobs, and therefore raise the minimum wage so people can try to live off of it, further eradicating jobs.

The high cost of labor drives jobs overseas or replaced with automation…thanks to Democrats. It seems there is a solid trend of Democrats hurting the very people they claim they want to help. It’s unfortunate.

Another driver of wage stagnation is the explosion of single motherhood, the result of a flaw in the design of the welfare system. This produces people who are not equipped to succeed in life. Again, you can thank Democrats for this aspect of poverty, as they fight viciously any attempt to fix Welfare so that nuclear families are not punished.

Please explain why capitalism is a threat to individual rights, as Peter claimed. Only if the Left succeeds in eroding the Constitution, starting with the Electoral College, will individual rights be threatened.

Now this is interesting – two very different opinions on the matter. One discusses how stagnation has been over calculated due to the metric used, and the other talks about how maximizing shareholder value led to repeated corporate raiding. The latter would apply to very specific classes of companies, and it would address cyclic layoffs.

My father was an executive after he retired from the military. I recall he told me that the board members of a company used to invest their own money, so they were very conservative in the risks. Performance was rewarded, and the lack thereof was punished. I believe he said that when companies began to sell stock, the board had other people’s money to invest. That led to the infamous Golden Parachutes, which a board that lost its own bankroll would by no means have approved. I’ll have to ask him again, as this was long ago that we talked about it.

The last time I checked, unions funneled more money into politics than the Koch Brothers. The NRA donates a paltry sum, comparatively. However, I would see the dissolution of the unfettered donation limits of PACs. It’s a loophole in campaign limits. Every individual should be limited to a donation of $2500. That’s it.

You know what right to work means? It means that you have the right to get a job without joining a union. A union does not have the authority to prevent anyone from working. A union does not have the right to assault “scabs.” A union does not have the right to forcefully deduct money from your paycheck to donate to political candidates against their will, in an effort to circumvent campaign finance laws.

None of this is capitalism threatening individual rights. How is the economic model of creating a good or service to sell, and selling it to customers who voluntarily buy it, a threat to liberty? It’s the Left that threatens individual rights, protected by our Constitution. The Left opposes Free Speech (see the violence against conservative speakers and the bias against conservative students). You can’t even walk down the street wearing clothing supporting your party, but you can wear a shirt with murderous Hugo Chavez or the Hammer and Sickle with impunity. They oppose the Second Amendment. They oppose freedom of religion, forcing bakers to participate in gay weddings if they don’t want to. (Who would eat a cake the baker was forced to bake? Eeeew.) The list goes on. But it’s the Left that is the threat to personal liberty, not capitalism. It’s the Left that espouses economic Socialism which, by definition, requires the abolition of individual rights. You seek, people don’t want to give up their land and businesses to the government and live in ugly tenement houses. That’s why dissenters are always rounded up in Socialist countries.

It is ironic that you are fighting for dictatorship in the name of individual rights.

The Left is passing laws in state after state that would force the electoral college to vote with the popular vote. That takes away the Constitutonally protected right for each state to vote for its own electoral votes. Those votes are supposed to represent the will of each state.

In this way, no matter who the actual state votes for, its electoral votes would go to who the majority of other statesvoted for. If it became the rule for all states, then every single electoral college vote would be unanimous.

I would greatly enjoy a blue state getting burned this way, and being forced to vote red.

But here in the United States, inequality is now a major threat to individual rights. Many would argue that the Supreme Court’s Citizens-United decision opened the floodgates of dark money into U.S. politics. Consequently a network of billionaire political donors, the Koch Bros Network, for instance, has a disproportionate influence on legislative polices at the expense of individuals.

A record of military service, or of avoiding military service, was at one time an issue for voters.
The results of the 1992 and 1996 elections demonstrate that that is no longer true.
The war records of Bush 41 and Bob Dole and the “war record” of Bill Clinton were, overall, non-factors in voters’ decisions.
Even lying about one’s “war record” doesn’t seem to be a disqualifier, at least for Seen. Blumethal’s constituents.

Tom, military service records of candidates was not determinative in those elections, as you state, though the GOP tried to make them so up to and including a decorated veteran like Kerry. In the case of Trump we have a president who disrespects POWs and others who’s service he deems not up to his imagined heroic standards and brags how he “gave” the military so much money. His behavior is predictably toxic and self serving and there is no road too low for him to travel. He deserves whatever obstacles he encounters there.

Anon,
My point was that after the 1990s, military service or lack of it was not much of an issue in elections. I don’t think it’s likely to be much of a factor going forward, either.
Neither Bush 41 nor Bob Dole played up their military service anywhere close to the extent that JFK and Joe Kennedy put the “PT 109” story for over 15 years. John Kerry had a dilemma in 2004, having gone to great lengths to play up the military as war criminals, late in the Vietnam War. Later, the medals Kerry had supposedly thrown over the White House fence miraculously reappeared when Kerry displayed them. And he announced at the 2004 Convention that he was “reporting for duty, ready to defend America again”.
Having locked himself into a position c.35 years earlier that he was part of criminal American military venture, the Vietnam War, it made it difficult for him to shift gears and declare that the 3-4 months he spent in Vietnam he was “defending America”.

Read some old articles by Hendrik Hertzberg, twisting himself into a pretzel to manufacture of standard of evaluation which absolves all Democrats and convicts certain Republicans. And when it cannot convict the Republican, it’s a matter of no consequence. The entire discourse on military service as presented by partisan Democrats is vicious and fraudulent.

Over the last 50 odd years, there have been two notable presidential candidates who actually were draft dodgers, Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton. There’s a third (Pat Robertson) who had a skeleton in his closet in re his time in the Marines. There are some others (Bill Bradley, Alan Keyes) about which there are odd lacunae in their biography on this question. The rest complied with the law and all but two received no dispensations which weren’t available to hundreds-of-thousands of others in their cohort. (The two exceptions were Mitt Romney and Jesse Jackson, who received deferments open to clergy and allied).

Military service is a credential. It’s better to have had it than not. It’s better to have had demanding service than undemanding service. Candidates exist on a spectrum in this matrix. Democrats sort people into nominal categories and pretend some people are kosher and others are traffe (but that it doesn’t matter if a failing grade is awarded a Democratic politician).

In John Kerry’s case, pretty much his entire public career was constructed on a foundation of having been a combat veteran of the Navy. That was how he came to public attention in Massachusetts during the period running from 1970 to 1972 and and that was how he presented himself in 1984 when he knocked off James Shannon in a Democratic primary to cadge a seat in Congress. He had only one competitive election to Congress thereafter, which was in 1996. Only one Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has been voted out of office in the last 90 years, and that man was decidedly eccentric as northern Democrats go (which John Kerry was not; by contrast, three of the four Republicans elected to the Senate from Massachusetts since 1935 have been voted out of office).

You could say that of John McCain as well, with two qualifications. John McCain had a distinctive portfolio of interests which set him apart from other candidates. Also, the Navy was pretty much his life until he was 44 years old. John Kerry was on active duty for about four years; he wasn’t a vocational sailor, he was a lawyer, and a very common-and-garden lawyer for ‘a that.

Dole may have overdone the war veteran bit, and been inclined to because he had almost no pre-political career other than his military service and some p/t and seasonal wage jobs. The only law job he ever had was as an elected corporation counsel. In fairness to Dole, though, people were inclined to write about it because the sequelae of that service hits you in the face when you meet him. Hendrik Hertzberg said the imbalance between one side of his body and the other is very obtrusive and seems to be replicated in his character.

Absurd,
Bob Dole had been in the House, then ( mostly) in the Senate for over 30 years before he became the odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination in 1996.
At that point, a lot of people knew he’d been wounded in WWII, but relatively few knew just how massive those injuries we’re.
He concealed the extent of his injury to his virtually useless arm by having a “perma-grip” clenched hand grasping a pen.
And some people knew “his arm was hurt in WWII”, but knew nothing of the details of combat when he was wounded, or the extent that his shoulder was destroyed, etc.
In the case of JFK, it didn’t take over 30 years for the American public to know his story. Or that his back problems were attrituted to the PT 109 injuries ( JFK’s medical issues went far beyond any injuries he incurred when his PT Boat was smashed), but he was able to conceal the actual serious, underlying medical issues he had.
I was contrasting the massive publicity surrounding the PT 109 that was used his entire political life v. the details of Bush 41 or Bob Dole’s war records, which got a fraction of the publicity Kennedy enjoyed.
And the war records of those two became known to the public only after to they were in politics for decades.
A lifelong Democrat and WWII veteran ( state-side; he didn’t have to go overseas) complained in 1996 that what he had against Dole was the fact that he was making his war record known.
I knew he all but worshipped JFK and FDR, and I asked him if he’d “ever heard of the PT 109”.
I think he got the point. But I also knew a lot more about Dole’s bio than he did. Dole was a 3 sport star athlete in high school and college, and his life was changed drastically because of how badly wounded he was.
So Dole’s ability to come back from that , adjust to the fact that his his life would be forever changed, is more of an integral part of his life’s story than many other “war stories” of other politicians.

I wasn’t reading newspapers in 1960, so I can’t say much about the amount of ink spent on the PT-109. Again, one motive in that case was Kennedy’s almost nonexistent employment history outside his military service. He’d been a wire service reporter for a period of months in 1945 and 1946, but that was it. Same deal with his brothers. Military service, political staff positions, elected office, not much else. What bugs me about Kennedy’s people is that they trashed Hubert Humphrey in this regard. Humphrey was a married man with children and was exempt from military conscription for that reason from the fall of 1940 to the fall of 1943; when he was finally examined for service, he failed multiple induction physicals. His service record was in order and it was seedy of the Kennedys to hold it against him.

I’m not inclined to take John Kerry to task, except that he had his friggin’ boatmates campaigning with him 35 years after he was off active duty while his allies in the press were trying to trash George W. Bush’s military service (with lies and fabricated documents). Most of Kerry’s peers during his service in the Mekong Delta thought him a man on the make; they might have forgotten about it if he hadn’t made a name for himself later trashing the war effort by promoting fabricated claims of war crimes. And if he hadn’t made repetitive references to it in his public statements. (The Christmas in Cambodia tall tale came from a newspaper interview in 1979). And if he hadn’t gotten elected to Congress by contrasting his brave self with James Shannon, who, like most men born in 1952, had no history in the military. Kerry and his press lickspittles play all these cards, and then partisan Democrats bitc! and moan that disgruntled Navy veterans play their own cards. Repulsive.

Absurd,
You wouldn’t have to search very far to find the promotion of the PT 109 story going back long before 1960. Joe Kennedy had enough clout and money to see that this story was well-covered even before JFK entered politics (Joe Jr. was the one that old man Kennedy was grooming for the presidency as far back as the 1940s, but his death about a year later made it even more vital to Joe Sr. to build up JFK.
JFK’s feats after the PT 109 was lost were very impressive, and it was a great story. But there are countless “uncommon valor” story from WWII when “uncommon valor was common”, that passed without much notice.
You mention Humphrey……the well-funded Kennedy machine rolled right over the top of Humphrey and other less affluent campaigns in the race for the 1960 Democratic nomination. There was only a tiny fraction of today’s campaign spending, but if one campaign outspent another by 5-10 times, it was easy to gain a clear advantage.

Tom, do you have a media index count on number of mentions Bush Sr got compared to Kennedy? ..I’m ‘half’ serious..!

Bush Senior won by a landslide in 1988. We all knew he distinguished himself as a war hero at a very young age. No one missed that headline. And we knew George H W had been Captain of the Yale baseball team. George H W Bush was like the super WASP of his generation. No preppie ever succeeded so often!

But Kennedy was about 8 years older than Bush. And JFK was the first of that generation to enter the White House. Kennedy looked like a movie star with a society princess of a wife. Photos of them together naturally created the Camelot myth. And how could they not?

Fashion historians now consider the Kennedy era a high-water point of design. Many agree. TV’s “Mad Men” was all about Kennedy era fashions. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin were at their peak around then. The Beatles invaded just ‘after’ Kennedy’s death.

So disgruntled Republicans will have to content themselves in knowing that photo’s of the Kennedy’s and that period shall always draw interest. Magazines and newspapers will always find reasons to publish photos from the Kennedy era.

We all knew he distinguished himself as a war hero at a very young age. No one missed that headline. And we knew George H W had been Captain of the Yale baseball team. George H W Bush was like the super WASP of his generation. No preppie ever succeeded so often!

Again, that reporters wrote about something is not an indication that the candidate was presenting himself a particular way.

Bush’s background was used against him by politicians and press alike. See Ann Richards (“born with a silver foot in his mouth”), Jim Hightower (‘born on 3d base, thinks he hit a triple’). The media assisted the Dukakis campaign with a mendacious and transparently partisan campaign against Dan Quayle.

People like Michael Kinsley were deriding Bush for various things he did and said which were incongruent with the pigeon hole they’d stuck him in, and then turn around and deride him for things which were in tune with the stereotype. People like Sidney Blumenthal wrote dishonest articles meant to denigrate his actual accomplishments.

After all these episodes, some among them (e.g. Kinsley) were enraged when Republican pr tactics took their candidate down.

Peter,
Bush 41 was in politics for decades before his WWII experiences became well-known. There was very little mention of that part of his bio when he was in Congress in the. 1960s, when he later served as head of the CIA, as envoy to China, as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and as VP for 8 years.
Those details, including the fact that he volunteered for the Navy right out of High School, became the youngest Navy combat aviator, flew over 50 combat missions, and barely escape capture and certain death by the Japanese, were not generally known by the public until he ran for President in 1988.
Like JFK, Bush came from a prominent family and a political dynasty. But unlike JFK’s family, Bush’s family did not use their connections to publish his WWII experiences. And that modesty was a characteristic that was instilled in Bush in the way he was raised.
There’s an easier tally to be made that trying to gather up all of the JFK/ PT 109 stories and comparing the count with Bush WWII publicity. Simply count the number of movies made about the PT 109 v. the ones about Bush in WWII.

I certainly don’t recall from 1980 much being said about anyone’s service record. Dole’s was written about in 1976, but, again, Dole’s injuries were quite obtrusive to the reporters covering him. I suppose you could use Lexis-Nexis and try a content search. Harping on candidates’ service record was a signature of Hendrik Hertzberg, and the fun really got underway in 1988 with Paul McCloskey’s charges against Pat Robertson and then with the Bush / Quayle campaign. (Quayle was an inappropriate selection and that said something about Bush’s judgement as an executive, but that’s no excuse to lie and distort, which is what mediaswine were doing).

One thing to note about service records: prior to 1992, the overwhelming majority of consequential presidential candidates were born prior to 1939. Most men of that vintage had some sort of military service and if my own experience of veterans of a certain vintage is representative, they didn’t make too much of it that person x had more demanding service than person Y. We lived for six years down the street from a man who had been on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Neither he nor his children ever said a word about it. We found out when Saving Private Ryan came out and he remarked that the scene was done with considerable versimilitude.

Absurd,
Your comment about the neighbor who was at Omaha Beach reminds me a classmate and friend’s dad who was a WWII vet. I learned years later that he’d seen some combat was wounded in the wrist/ forearm……I wasn’t around his dad enough to know how visible the scars were, or how much it might have restricted his mobility/ etc. In his wrist or hand.
It was only when he died , years later, that I knew about any of the details. He enlisted in the Marines right after he graduate from high school at age 17, in 1944. Given his age, he probably could have safely sat out the war. He was evacuated from Iwo Jima after he was wounded.
I never even knew if he was in the Altantic or Pacific theater until I read his obituary. This was typical of WWII and Korean War vets……some may have discussed their experiences among themselves if they went to the VFW, but it was common for them and their families not to say much about their military service in those wars

Kennedy looked like a movie star with a society princess of a wife. Photos of them together naturally created the Camelot myth. And how could they not?

You ever notice how the spawn of a cruddy and unscrupulous plutocrat like Joseph Kennedy Sr gets this treatment while the left and the alt-right alike are alternately deriding Prescott Bush and his progeny or manufacturing crazy libels of them?

Fashion historians now consider the Kennedy era a high-water point of design.

Both you and ‘Anon’ are hot for certification from supposed experts in realms where judgement is either subjective or subsidiary to the ‘expert’s’ value scales. Anon fancies it means something when some cack-handed sample of academic historians (> 95% of whom vote Democratic nowadays) rate Barack Obama the ’12th best’ president. Now you’re telling us that Halston was the epitome of aesthetic experience. Get it through your head, Jahkie was a consumer of his wares, not his muse. (And JFK had not a thing to do with it).

The “Camelot” myth was created in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. With the help of a famous writer…..I think it was Theodore White…..Jackie Kennedy coined the “Camelot” description for the JFK era. I don’t think one would be able to find that word in reference to the JFK Administration before the assassination.

Both Kennedy and Eisenhower had oddly elevated approval ratings, in Eisenhower’s case, quite durable ratings. Kennedy’s I don’t think showed any downward trajectory during his abbreviated time in office. No other presidents in the last 80 years had this experience. There was something about the political culture of that 10 year period you didn’t see before or after.

White was an old-school liberal not at all pleased with the evolution of liberal discourse after 1966. See James Neuchterlein’s review of his writings, published ca. 1982.

Tom, Alan J. Learner, the successful Broadway lyricist behind the musical “Camelot”, was Kennedy’s age and a classmate of JFK’s at both Choate and Harvard.

“Camelot” opened on Broadway in December of 1960, one month after Kennedy’s election. The Original Cast album spent 6 weeks at #1 during Kennedy’s first months in office.

So I believe that some writer of the period (in probably The New Yorker) linked Kennedy with “Camelot” by way of an article noting that Kennedy knew Lerner.

My brother once had an issue of Mad Magazine from 1962 that featured a parody of the Kennedy White House with satirical lyrics sung to “Camelot” show tunes. So the myth was already there when Mad ran with it.

Tabby, I think you’re plagued by the liberals in your head. Most Americans don’t know the Prescott Bush name. But should they? I think Prescott only served one term in the senate. Though he was probably very well known in the New York – Boston corridor during his period of prominence. I’m certain Prescott was known by the old WASP establishment. And I don’t say that sneeringly.

He served in Congress for 11 years. He was the father of George H.W. Bush. And, yes, both alt-right types and red-haze leftoids have manufactured in their mind a fantasy Prescott Bush who collaborated with Nazi Germany. No clue how you can claim with a straight face that his son and grandsons haven’t been subject to a mix of derision and libel from you lot.

Presidents often look better retrospectively. Eisenhower and Kennedy were consistently admired in office. By contrast, Truman’s approval ratings were erratic, with a downward trajectory. Johnson’s had a downward trajectory. Nixon’s declined, rose, then tanked. Ford’s were level, and always a bit deficient. Carter’s were on a net downard trajectory. Reagan’s declined then rose then fluctuated. Papa Bush’s rose, then tanked disastrously. Clinton’s declined for years, then rose for years. Bush’s began to tank in 2005, and were the pits by 2008. And so forth.

Evaluating the pre-1975 presidents, I’d say Nixon has recovered from an artificial trough, but his administration had a few successes and many failures. Johnson left problems when not generating disasters; fifty years hasn’t made him look better. Truman recovered within a generation and has merited standing. The only people who dislike him are the red haze left and professional snotnoses like Garry Wills. (I doubt the alt-right / palaeo types deign to ponder that era, except for peddlers of Ron Paul’s nonsense historiography).

Tom, both Bush 41 and Bob Dole’s campaigns promoted their military careers, and unlike GOP attempts at trashing Kerry’s service, which you continue here, there was no corresponding attempt by Democrats to denigrate that service, nor was there any against McCain’s service. By the way, Kerry served 4 months in VN due to his being awarded a 3rd purple heart.

Anon,
I guess you’re not familiar with Joe Kennedy’s and JFK’s extensive and extended PR campaign built around the PT 109.
It exceeded anything Bush 41 and Bob Dole played up.
You might watch the 1963 movie PT 109, released shortly before JFK’s re-election campaign was to kick off.
If you knew anything about the promotion of JFK’s war record v. that of Bush 41@ or Bob Dole, you’d pick up on the difference.
You appear to be equally ignorant of John Kery’s performances in 1971. He was the one trashing the military personnel who served in Vietnam. You can probably find his address to Congress that made him a public figure and was used by Kerry as a vehicle to start a political career.
There’s a debate about whether Kerry was “a medal hound”
because of the extremely minor nature of those three combat-related wounds he received.
I know that some of the others who served in the Swift Boat contingent felt it was laughable that he collected 3 Purple Hearts in a very short period of time when his injuries were extremely minor.
I think there was a policy that 3 Purple Hearts bought you a ticket home. There were claims one of the superior officers was being “lobbied” by Kerry for one or more of the Purple Hearts.
And that the superior officer was reluctant to keep authorizing the medal handouts to Kerry.
Do you think that Kerry felt he was “defend the U.S.” with his Vietnam service? Kerry, to put it mildly, did not feel that he was when he came out against the war in the manner that he did.
Claiming 30+ years later that he was defending the U.S. with his Vietnam service opened up a can of worms for Kerry because of the statements he made back then

I remember Kerry’s congressional testimony and there is no debate about Kerry’s service among decent people. If there is, maybe we should be grilling all the vets when they come home and withhold our honoring them until their enemies try to trash them. I don;t wish to engage with you in your efforts to dishonor any servicemen.

The truth is a mix of good and bad for everyone involved. Kerry was accused of Purple Heart shopping, pressuring his CO to award them for non qualifying events in order to go home. A lot of boys died in Vietnam. Some of the battles were meat grinders. Kerry may have been accused of medal shopping, but he was never accused of dishonorable service or cowardice in battle. He served in combat. That counts for something, even if he allegedly reached a point where he wanted to go home.

Deferments for college were normal for students. You can’t pick up college where you left off, years later, usually. Often the first shot at college was a man’s only shot. The criticism is that college deferments meant that those who couldn’t afford college were over-represented in the draft.

It was only Trump’s final deferment for bone spurs that was questionable. I got bone spurs from walking around 30 miles (according to my phone), in boots. Should have known better and stuck to my Ariats. The pain was excruciating. I couldn’t walk. Every time I sat down for a short while, it was like stepping on nails when I got up. I was mincing around trying to walk on my toes while leading the horses. I had no idea feet could hurt that much if they weren’t broken. If Trump’s bone spurs were that bad, he’d be walking like an old man and unfit for duty. His athletic ability the day before the spur manifested symptoms would be immaterial. The allegation was that either his bone spurs weren’t real, and it was a fraud, or that he could have been treated for them. It took me over a year and repeated treatment to get mine improved, and it still flairs up from time to time. I don’t know if this was a draft dodging ploy, or if it was legit. I do know that many people took deferment opportunities with gratitude when they were available. In retrospect, I think he wished he’d served, but the decision was made. There was an accusation that deferments were given out more frequently to rich young men. Again, it would be a case by case basis.

I have a friend whose wife stopped him from being shipped out. He’d completed his training, and bonded with the guys. She was pregnant, and if I recall correctly, she told me she arranged herself for him to get deferred. He was pretty upset about it, because he felt like he was letting his friends down. But he was also going to be a father and his wife was terrified. Some of his friends he’d trained with didn’t make it back. He still feels grief and guilt about not going, while also being grateful for being alive. I also have known people who had severe PTSD from Vietnam.

At the time, a lot of our guys were dying. Men were getting married to avoid the draft.

I come from a military family. My relatives have fought, and some have been wounded or injured in combat going back generations. It is bitter to think that there were those who avoided service, and allowed others to take their place. Or to wonder if hard wars would have gone better if everyone who should serve did so. That said, I’m a woman and was never subject to a draft. I never had that 1-A in my hand, knowing there was a good chance to be killed. I’ve never been in combat. Some of the drop zones had near 100% fatalities. My relatives who served almost never talk about the fighting. They’d talk about how cold it was in the Korean War, or their gun’s name, for example, but not the fighting. So I feel like I’m criticizing from a safe place, and I don’t have all the facts.

On another note, while feminists advocate for women to serve in the military, the movement adamantly opposes women being included in the draft, which may be a form of draft dodging itself.

What bothered me more than Trump’s bone spurs were his comments about Gold Star families. Most military know how to treat a Gold Star family, even if they are viciously, bitterly furious with the military or any president. They all know that it could be their loved ones one day, grieving and angry.

There was nothing ‘questionable’ about the I-Y deferment Trump was awarded in 1968. A six-digit population of such deferments were awarded that year. They were awarded for people being underweight, being overweight, for nuisance problems &c. Someone else would have addressed his situation differently and it’s something of a mark against him, but there weren’t any privileges awarded in his case. These deferments were common. Trump could have been recalled for another physical in as little as 90 days. He wasn’t, because the military’s manpower requirements did not require dipping into the I-Y pool.

Actually, Anon, there was a LOT of debate about Kerry’s war record. The fact that you evidently did not know about that debate does not mean that it did not happen.
But I think Kerry had a bigger problem. He seemed to be “for the war (in this case, the Vietnam War) before he was against it”. Then for it again much later on when he tried to frame his service in Vietnam as “protecting the country”.

The ‘indecent’ people included 17 of the 21 other Swift Boat captains who served in the Mekong Delta at the same time. It also included the man who preceded Kerry in commanding that particular Swift Boat and the man who succeeded him. It did not include Kerry’s subordinates bar one – the one who had the longest time with him. It included Kerry’s entire chain-of-command.

A profile of John O’Neill from a Texas trial lawyer who has dealt with him professionally is here.

I suppose there are worse slights than being labeled “indecent” by an anonymous puke like “anon/ Jan F”. But at least he/she demostrate the anonymous courage of “their” convictions via whatever sock puppets “anonJanF” happen to be using.

Tom, both Bush 41 and Bob Dole’s campaigns promoted their military careers,

Pants on fire. Bush 41 never made much of his military service. He answered questions when asked and there were some some profiles of him that included it. (Sidney Blumenthal wrote a contemptible piece trying to trash that service; Blumenthal was a press agent for Gary Hart and then a whore for the Clintons).

Bush’s opponents in competitive elections in Texas included one man who had been a combat veteran in Italy, one man who’d been in the Marines; and one man who had (1) resigned a judgeship and joined the army in 1943, (2) did so even though he was 39 years old and had a wife and child, and (3) served in the infantry in the European theatre. There wasn’t any mileage to be made from Bush’s military service in Texas politics and he didn’t stick it to Ronald Reagan or Michael Dukakis about their blah postings in the military. Instead, he had to fight off a mendacious press campaign against Dan Quayle over the man’s National Guard service (a campaign supplemented with rude remarks from the butt-hurt Bob Dole. (That Michael Dukakis had had a student deferment all through the Korean War and then been a titless secretary in the Army for a couple of years was all good).

“Michael Dukakis had had a student deferment all through the Korean War and then been a titless secretary in the Army for a couple of years was all good.”

You just gave away your age on that one. Secretaries of the Armed Services have included ones who had breasts from puberty since the 1990s.

But “titless secretary” – barracks poetry aside,, that hearkens back to when even low-level decision-makers’ last experience with a keyboard was typing up their resumés in college, and daily keyboarding was women’s work.

Long ago, and far away, except in government, which never has to worry about whether personal secretaries (with or without décolletage) are a needless expense. The computer revolution seems to have decimated the ranks of personal secretaries/”administrative assistants”, and I remember the exact point at which college students training for a profession (medicine, engineering, business administration, etc) had to spend a semester learning how to type, use spreadsheets and word processors (this was before the security clamps came off the Internet).

I was one of three young men in our high school in an otherwise female class who took “Business Automation” because it featured instruction in the IBM Model 29 card punch, which for ten years afterward was a necessary tool for undergraduates taking classes in FORTRAN and other programming languages.

I never had to pay for lunch at one university I attended in the early 1980s, because I was a touch typist on the Model 29, and plenty of other folks in my FORTRAN class were not, and were willing to slip me a fiver to type up their cards (not program for them, that would have dented my chances at repeat business).

Anonymous, in your search you quoted what Tammy Duckworthy said, not what Donald Trump said. Trump has been a great President. You can’t even get your quotes right. Look at how you used your punction marks.

Did you serve? I don’t mean on your back.

Trump’s worst critics congratulated him on his D day speech and you do nothing more than despoil the meaning behind the speech.

Smith allowed Allan to say that to the one and only original anonymous. Imagine what Smith will not allow L4D to say to Allan in reply. Here’s a hint: Allan is a . . . [redacted] . . . [deleted] . . . [blocked] . . . Mama’s boy.

“An Iraq War veteran, Duckworth served as a U.S. Army helicopter pilot and suffered severe combat wounds, which caused her to lose both of her legs and some mobility in her right arm. She was the first female double amputee from the war. Despite her grievous injuries, she sought and obtained a medical waiver which allowed her to continue serving as a lieutenant colonel in the Illinois Army National Guard along with her husband, Major Bryan W. Bowlsbey, a signal officer and fellow Iraq War veteran, until her retirement from the Army in October 2014.”

Whether or not Duckworth should be insulted is not the question. Anonymous misquoted (not Duckworthy) and now she is making statements that have no resemblence to the truth. Hint: Anonymous, get over your stupor before posting.

My previous comment was:

Anonymous, in your search you quoted what Tammy Duckworthy said, not what Donald Trump said. Trump has been a great President. You can’t even get your quotes right. Look at how you used your punction marks.

Right after posting I got breaking news from The Hill. Another brave Democrat can’t survive blowback.
—
Biden reverses stance on Hyde Amendment after blowback
Jessie Hellmann06/06/19 08:20 PM EDT
Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden said Thursday he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment, just one day after reaffirming his decades-long support for the ban on federal funding for abortions.

Biden’s presidential campaign had said Wednesday that he still supported the controversial ban.

The news sparked intense blowback from members of his party, including fellow presidential hopefuls, who criticized Biden for reaffirming his stance amid a spate of anti-abortion measures being passed in state legislatures.

Biden cited recently passed abortion restrictions as his reasoning for reversing his position.

“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code,” he said at a Democratic National Convention gala in Atlanta.

L4D says–Communist China lent $500 Million to a Twump bwanded hotel-resort-golf-course-theme park in Jakarta, Indonesia, just three days after Pwesident Twump rescinded fines on a Chinese telecom company for violating U. S. sanctions against Iran. Twump Tweeted at the time that “The U. S. had to act to protect Chinese jobs.”

No kidding? “The U. S. had to act to protect Chinese jobs.”–Tweeted Twump.

President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!

Anonymous, Trump doesn’t lie down all day. He is busy trying to put America first and in the process he both fights and deals with China attempting to push China to deal within international norms so he can protect our IP and our jobs. I know this type of thing is confusing to you but I thought I would try and help you learn what is actually happening.

L4D says–Slight correction as excerpted from the article linked near the bottom of the previous page:

China agreed to the funds just 72 hours before Trump denounced penalties against Chinese telecom giant ZTE for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. The president said the U.S. had to act to protect Chinese jobs.

Combat medic and former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives Amelia Keane is more direct.

“I certainly don’t agree with someone taking a deferment and to avoid service to their country, particularly when they have aims of public service at the time,” she told InsideSources. “They should do their full duty to the country, and if there is a draft, they should make every effort to serve their time just like other Americans had to do.”

Until recently Keane was head of the influential New Hampshire Young Democrats, who’ve been wooed by the young military veterans in the race like Buttigieg, Moulton and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. At the same time, military issues have thus far taken a back seat to both economic issues like Medicare For All and social issues like abortion.

And Shrum adds one more data point to ponder:

“No Vietnam veteran has ever been elected President of the United States.”

End of excerpt

No one should duck military service, or lie about it — like Blumenthal.

The difference between us, Tommy, is that you apparently only care if it’s a Democrat who’s done the dodging.

Sorry I missed the routine cutting and pasting by Anonymous the Troll Groupie. The fact is that there were all kinds of guys who got all kinds of deferments during the era of the draft.
I don’t expect your knowledge, Troll Groupie Anonymous, to ever extent beyond posting links, or cutting and pasting extended thoughts of others.
I can briefly review 2 of the issues that I covered in this thread; first, I stated that since the 1990s, military service or lack of it has not been much of a factor with the electorate. I won’t bother trying to explain that again to Troll Groupie/ Cut and Paste Anonymous, but I went over that previously.
The second issue I discussed was the service or lack of service by some of the best known political figures. Trump’s I-Y status has been covered extensively, and referenced by Sen. Duckworth, then re-posted here.
I didn’t bring up that pre-1973 era of the draft; once it became a topic here, I did comment that most voters don’t consider military service, or deferments granted 45-55 years ago, an important factor in determine their voting decision.
And once the discussion was opened up in this thread about the well-known I-Y/ bone spurs Trumo deferment, I then brought up some similar, lesser-known deferments that Troll Goupie Anonymous apparently did not want to hear about. So I really, really hope that seeing that did not upset her delicate 🤯 and anonymous sensibilities.
And I hope that anonymous Anonymous takes these comments in the spirit that was intended😝😜. There are no links, or cutting and pasting in this comment, so I’ll use the emojis the A.A. Troll Groupie likes so much. 😏

Summarizing j..ko.f Tom’s posting here, he’s trying to minimize the fact that our j..ko.f-in-chief has repeatedly lied about his draft record which included a bone spur condition written up by one of Daddy’s tenants while slandering POWs, Gold Star families, while bragging about his largesse to the military and his imagined bravery. He deserves whatever trash he attracts on the low road he’s chosen and a..h..e Tom’s attempt at pettifogging is neither accurate, relevant, or interesting.

PS I hope Tom doesn’t mind my affectionate nicknames which i picked up from his posting style.

Trump has claimed he was not drafted due to his high lottery number. That is a lie. We don’t know if he had the bone spur condition written up by Daddy’s tenant. His daughters say he spoke several times with the family about the favor he did for Daddy, their landlord.

Unless you are able to pick out the exact numbers that made a person fit for the draft at the time Trump was excluded from the draft what you say is a lie because you don’t know. Tell us what Trump’s number was. Tell us up to what number was being drafted at the date of Trump’s consideration for the draft.

The number only meant one would be considered for the draft. There were a lot of other considerations involved.

This is doofus, apparently it is difficult for you. At the link you can view Trump’s actual draft log with classifications. He got the bone spurs exemption in November of 1968, a couple of months after being classified 1-A, and his lottery number is not listed until July,972. From the link:

“But his Selective Service records, obtained from the National Archives, suggest otherwise. Mr. Trump had been medically exempted for more than a year when the draft lottery began in December 1969, well before he received what he has described as his “phenomenal” draft number.

Because of his medical exemption, his lottery number would have been irrelevant, said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, who has worked for the agency for three decades.

“He was already classified and determined not to be subject to the draft under the conditions in place at the time,” Mr. Flahavan said….”

Deal with one thing at a time Anon. You said: ‘“repeatedly lied about his draft record which included a bone spur condition ” and now you backpeddle. “We don’t know if he had the bone spur condition written up by Daddy’s tenant.”

Do you think most people go to doctors that are unknown to them? Should he have travelled to California where Trump was unknown to see a Podiatrist? You are ridiculous. He had a bone spur according to his doctor and according to his draft board. Absent any other proof in the negative the conclusion is that Trump had a bone spur and you lied in your initial comment, so why should anyone trust anything you say?

As Allan fails to recognize – English is probably his 2nd language – we know Trump lied about how he avoided the draft and whether the bone spurs condition was a lie or not, we don’t know. We do know that the doc who gave him that was one of Daddy’s tenants and that his daughters said he spoke of the favor he did for the Trumps with that letter.

Allan, get someone to help you on texts you can’t follow. I don’t mind repeating these things up to a point – and especially the salacious ones on Trump – but really. Get help.

Anon, you are all over the place saying one thing and then another. You are like a roulette wheel that chooses a number randomly. You can’t be trusted with the truth. Before drawing a conclusion and calling people liars have proof and make sure that what you are saying is correct. Also make sure your proof is documented otherwise you can’t call someone a liar. You can only repeat what so and so said. Learn what primary and secondary sources are.

I personally don’t know what the truth about Trump and the draft is but I do know that a lot of people will knowingly lie to push their ideology. Thus the proof required has to be even stronger.

I listen to you and your advice that I need help reading (“text”). Of course that is just you mouthing off. The problem is that you have very little to back you up and you have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable and unwilling to deal with the truth.

The medical data Trump supplied in 1968 was sufficient to persuade the draft board. (It’s a reasonable inference he also was given a physical). There’s no reason to pursue this inquiry further (except the emotional needs of Trump’s detractors).

What’s amusing about this is that they’re perfectly fine with Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton, whose chicanery in these matters is neither disputed nor disputable. And, of course, no one asked too many questions about what Gore Sr and Gore Jr did know and didn’t know about Gore Jr’s armed escort during the five months he spent in VietNam. (And, really, there’s no reason to unless you’re Gore Jr’s biographer).

“The medical data Trump supplied in 1968 was sufficient to persuade the draft board. (It’s a reasonable inference he also was given a physical). There’s no reason to pursue this inquiry further (except the emotional needs of Trump’s detractors).”

Exactly and that is what drives Anon to lie all the time. Anon has TDS and isn’t very smart.

His daughters say he spoke several times with the family about the favor he did for Daddy, their landlord.

His daughters’ account is credible only to people who are determined to believe them.

1. Doctors see dozens of patients a week, and his problem was an unremarkable one. If he remembered the visit a year later without looking at the files, that would be remarkable.

2. The lapse of time between this visit and the time you’d have been likely to see Donald Trump’s name in the papers was about 14 years.

3. What kind of a medical or peri-medical practitioner discusses specific cases with his family and gives out the patient’s name? And does it over and over? The family is likely to know the names of some patients if they succeed in reaching the doctor at home, but that’s not the case here.

This is doofus, Daddy Trump was not an inconsequential person in the lives of the doctor’s family and his telling the embarrassing tail – as they allege – making it more so. You may have a point about his sharing private medical information – assuming he even examined him – and I suggest Trump sue him post mortem.

“Allan you idiot, both those statements you quote from me are true and compatible.”

The question is not whether or not one or either of those statements are true. You have taken multiple positions about the facts involved while calling people liars even though you didn’t present the proof. Some of your arguments had a conflict with other arguments you made which makes us wonder which argument of yours is a lie and which is just a lucky guess.

First provide the proof and then go on from there. Both statements could be true or false and one could be true in one time frame while another true in another time frame. All the variables and all your multiple positions on the same facts can only lead us to believe that you lie.

I don’t think you can launch a civil defamation suit against an estate. (IIRC, the podiatrist in question died in 2007). You could sue his daughters, who are almost certainly lying, but the proof would be in the podiatrist’s office records. I’m pretty sure as a matter of law in New York that private clinic records are destroyed 7 years after the practitioner’s death, so there aren’t any proofs to win a defamation suit.

Allan,
I don’t know if Trump’s Selective Service records were released. And if so, how much detail is in them
I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but Trump (and probably others) presented his medical records when he appeared for a Selective Service physical.( If he did NOT appear, that would be both unusual and suspicious).
They’d have MDs and others on hand at the center were they reported for their physicals.
When I had to report for my Selective Service physical, a recently married guy was “down” because he knew the army would grab him shortly after his physical exam.
They bussed a group of 12-15 of us a little of 150 miles to the center where they did the exams. One guy I knew pretty well from college mentioned that he’d “shot up with speed ” right before we left town. They probably figured this guy’d be more trouble than he’s worth, so they passed him over.
They married guy was all smiles when we gathered for to trip back. He got a 1-Y for an ingrown toenail, and he hadn’t even brought it up. They spotted it during the physical and he was off the hook.
I’ve never seen a link here, or any material elsewhere, about Trump’s Selective Service records. But I know in that era they were grabbing guys as fast as they could once they turned 19. And some with seemingly minor medical issues got deferments, and others with some fairly serious health issues got drafted. It seemed like a pretty capricious system, especially with thousands of local draft boards involved in deciding who goes and who doesn’t get drafted.

I don’t mind, Anon/JanF. I can handle both of you easily enough.I thought between the two of you that you might have a better kniwledge…..perhaps even a “personal knowledge”…..of past presidents and leading political figures’ military records, avoidance of conscription, political use if war records, etc.
With so much “personal knowledge” in so many areas, I thought you’d be better informed.

The issue here is the use of the term ‘draft dodger’ by the mendacious and the stupid among the population of partisan Democrats. The term is properly used for people who received special consideration due to their own maneuvers or to the maneuvers of others on their behalf. The list of consequential presidential candidates who fall into this category is limited to Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton. People who were not consequential presidential candidates but did receive privileged treatment include Rudolph Giuliani and (it’s a reasonable inference) Mitch McConnell. For all the class resentment spewed about people’s service records, it’s notable that none of the four individuals in question came from wealthy or influential families (indeed, Giuliani grew up poor). Giuliani and McConnell had employers willing to go to bat for them, Sanders had a lawyer who knew how to gum up the works with a not-very-determined draft board, and Clinton is a capable con man who knew how to play the angles.

Adjacent to wire pulling with the Selective Service System would be wire pulling with the Services themselves. It’s a matter of record that special provisions were made for Pat Robertson and Al Gore. From surviving correspondence. Both men were sons of members of Congress. We know Sen. Willis Robertson asked in writing for his son to be transferred to less hazardous duties and we have some sketchy eyewitness testimony that Pat Robertson was fully cognizant of what was done on his behalf and may have asked his father to intercede for him. In regard to Gore, it appears that the Army gave him light duty and special protection on its own initiative, and that neither Gore, Sr nor Gore Jr were told what was up (though the son may have wondered how many other military newspaper reporters traveled around VietNam with an armed escort).

About 20% of the young men of the 1946 birth cohort cadged a baccalaureate degree and another 3% or so an associate’s degree. It wasn’t the mode to have a student deferment among men of a certain vintage, but it was common enough and something most of the children of the bourgeoisie received at one time or another. National politicians in this country are drawn from the children of the bourgeoisie or from the children of the working class who were academic achievers in their youth. There are very few exceptions. Very few consequential presidential candidates in the last 60 years have logged fewer than four years in institutions of higher education. (The two exceptions are Paul Simon and Barry Goldwater, neither of whom grew up in a working class family). The candidates you’re going to find born after 1904 but prior to 1952 who haven’t been subject to embarrassment consequent to having had student deferments are the issue of the service academies (Jimmy Carter, John McCain, and Wesley Clark), men who completed the first leg of their schooling prior to 1944 or thereabouts (which was the case with all presidential candidates of note during the period running from 1960 to 1972 save Robert Kennedy and true of Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Henry Jackson from subsequent years), men who were draft-eligible only during the years running from 1953 to 1965 (Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul), and men who deferred or interrupted their education in favor of military service (standard for men born during the years running from 1916 to 1927; among those born later, Tom Harkin may be the only one who did this).

This is doofus, I appreciate your tag team pettifogging with Tom of the disgraceful record and comments of Trump regarding the military, but I must remind you – as a loyal follower and defender of our pathological-liar-in chief, you don’t have any “mendacious” cards to play.

If you make up your mind, Anon/Jan F., whether you want to bitch about whether I mentioned Trump/ or did not mention Trump, we’ll see which one it is.
Or if you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth and gripe because you say I didn’t say much about Trump, then claim that I’m in league with others who did mention Trump, that might work best for you.
You can “channel” Anon one time, and Jan F another time so each of you can stay on opposite sides of the fence.Another sock puppet would give you even more options.

So which is it, genius….is it “team pettifogging” with “Absurd” about “Trump’s disgraceful” record and comments, or that I have said virtually nothing about Trump in this discussion.
Also, let us know if we’re talking to “Anon” or “Jan F.

Tom, you are pettifogging in an attempt to change the subject from Trump’s disgraceful record regarding comments on the military service of others and self serving lies about his own. Your actions and your goal are consistent and transparent and there’s no confusion on my part about them.

If you weren’t a fraud, it would occur to you that unpacking people’s sketch biographies means going where you don’t want to go as well as where you do. Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton scammed around to avoid military service. Joseph Biden, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, and Paul Tsongas were all innocent of military service. Richard Gephardt was in the National Guard, but that’s only unacceptable for George W. Bush and Dan Quayle because reasons. Jesse Jackson had a ministerial exception, but that’s only questionable when you’re a Mormon missionary because reasons. Jimmy Carter spent the 2d World War in Annapolis. Etc etc.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jul/21/was-trump-draft-dodger/
Absurd,
Neither “Anon” nor “Jan F.” 😉 have any interest in the overall function of the draft, and the counter-measures taken taken to “stay out of” the draft. Providing information and example of that process and those deferments might be of interest to some, but both Anon and JanF. are adept at constructing barriers when presented with information and facts they do not want to here.
I don’t think the complete Selective Service records of an individual are legally obtainable. The document about Trump’s status in this link gives only Trump’s status. What’s interesting is that they changed his 2S to IA about halfway through Trump’s 4 years of college. And he evidently was called up for the physical at the time (1966).
Then the 2S was reinstated. In that time period, if you lost your 2S deferment you were pretty much screwed.
The other interesting part of the document is that after getting his 1Y deferment in 1968 for the none spurs, he was classified as 4S in 1972.
Whatever deliberations there might have been in reaching those classification categories are probably either unavailable, or perhaps destroyed after a certain period of time.
Anyway, as I said earlier, since the 1990s, these “deferment flaps” aren’t likely to move the needle with the electorate.

I’m wagering the jigaroo in 1966 may have had to do with crossed signals at the time he transferred from Fordham to Penn.

I do not believe there was a 4-s classification. There was a 5-A classification for registrants who had aged out of eligibility. Trump would have been so classified consequent to his 26th birthday on 14 June 1972.

Absurd,
My bad on the “4S”…..I meant 2S. Some draft boards were probably sealzy enough to grab some guy because of a snafu like that. It should not have gone so far as to have Trump report for a physical; once they reclassified him as 1-A in 1966, that created an open for the draft board to try to induct Trump. Then Trump would be in a position where he’d have to appeal.
That could have happened and the document isn’t detailed enough to tell us how he went from 2S to 1A to 2S again. If Trump fell behind even one credit hour of the 30 (semester) hours or 45 quarter hours required each year, he would have permanently lost the 2S.

There’s not likely to be anything in the way of an actual debate with the “decent” Anon/ JanF. These “two” will simply tune out anything they don’t want to hear🙉, and come back with the same, lame lines like “pettifogging”, etc
So this comment isn’t about any response to those fools.
Whenever the political opposition digs up 50 year old dirt, there are a few factors that interfere with the goals of doing so.
One problem is that if a line of attack has been used before and voters shrug it off, it’s not like to be any more effective the second time around. These allegations against Trump were trotted out long before Trump was elected.
There’s not a slamdunk case that Trump did anything improper in getting his deferments.
Even IF that were the case, the fact is that by the last half of the 1960s, there was a growing resentment about the draft and the seemingly endless Vietnam War. There were far less “gung ho” guys in their late teens or early 20s who wanted to “get in on the action”. And there was an increasing number of guys facing the draft who were looking for loopholes.
So if fools like anon want to ignore the fact that A.- ducking the draft was an objective for a big part of the draft age guys, and B.– the electorate doesn’t especially care about digging out and recycling an allegation about events 50+ years ago, and C.- there is proof of “A” and “B” in that fact that Bill Clinton’s fancy footwork didn’t matter to voters when he ran against two distinguished WWII veterans.
Now I know that some people would prefer to believe that Trump behaved improperly, that he was the only one trying to get out of the draft, and who won’t let anything else sink in.
And pretend that they’re doing it because they’re “the decent ones”. So there’s no point in even attempting a rational debate with these fools. So they deliver their sermons from their pulpit and and tune out everything else.
So I won’t bother anon/ JanF with facts, as they’re apt to find themindecent, or just keep claiming “pettifogging! pettifogging!”, as though that’s an actual argument.
As far as their accusations that I’m just trying to deflect attention from Trump’s deferment, that is truly asinine. Trump’s dealings with the Selective Service did not occur in a vacuum. It’s not deflection to point out that a lot of people, included our now aging candidates, and a former president, used deferments tgems to get out of the draft.

In his fact free and repetitious tirade, Tom fails to note – no doubt he knows these things but can’t admit them – that not everyone facing the draft during VN had Daddy to bail them out, lied about it all later, made fun of POW/MIAs, questioned the military careers of others, picked a fight with Gold Star families, talked about his imaginary heroism, or then falsely bragged about how he “gave” money to the military, so STFU. As I have noted, Trump chose the low road – as he always does – and is fully deserving of the trashing he is getting on this issue. Tom will continue shedding tears for poor Donald, but he’s in a minority of fellow apologists for anything our a.s..le -in-cheif does or says.

Actually, Anon/ Frisby is the one in the minority. I think anonfrisby should keep reciting those same lines and discard anything else no acceptable.
One of the dumber comments just made by anonfrisby is that Trump “picked a fight with a Gold Star family. That would be the same Kzhir Con who later claimed that he was prevented from traveling to Canada when the “travel ban” debate was at its hieght.
There’s a difference between a tribute to his son, and exploiting his son’s death to launch an attack ad. There’s something sleazy about exploiting the death of his son. Anonfrisby lines up with the “Trump picked a fight with a gold star family” crowd, as if K. Con should be able to present an attack ad against Trump with impunity.
So we have the “decent” people like anonfrisby distorting what that so-called “tribute”can was really about. Whenever anyone is in hyper-spin mode like anonfrisby, they’ll keep beating a dead horse in the believe that they’re somehow scoring points.

As everybody but Tom knows Mr Khan’s son was a Muslim American killed in service and rightly bridled at Trump’s advocating for a ban on Muslim immigrants. After his comments, Trump then implied there was some plot involved in Mr Khan’s wife not speaking and it continued down from there. Any other decent person would have let that all go and been much better off for it ,as would the country. Trump later got into an argument with the Gold Star pregnant wife of a Miami vet killed in Nigeria. His lack of respect for those in service is clear and maybe Tom should read a newspaper every once, and though it’s probably too late for him, try to learn how decent people – no, not our president – behave.

Which of Anon’s lies do we believe? He cranks them out at an alarming rate so one can never be sure when he made a mistake and stuck in something that was true. That is why his comments and citations are so generalized. That is why the last citation on statistics led us to a kids site whose own citations didn’t lead us to the real numbers and where they came from.

This is the only place where a reply box was available; this comment is in reference to The Decent One’s claim about what “everybody knows”.
What “anon/ JanF/ Frisbey believes is not the same as what “everybody knows”. I can understand how that mistake could be made by an ill-jnformed jackass like anonjanf isn’t. The other issue distorting this clown’s perception is that decent people agree with him/her, and anything presented that is contrary to The Decent One’s belief is not worth considering.
It didn’t take long to figure out what Kzhir Con was up to. Whether started out ostensibly as a tribute to his son was quickly unmasked as a phony attack ad.
I went over some of these points at the time ( about 3 years ago), when Mr.Con gave his performance. I’m sure that a fool like anonjanf would lap that kind of stuff up, even though he was expoliting his dead son’s death 10-12 years earlier for obvious partisan, political purposes.
Nor did Mr. Con make a point based on Constitutional Law by waving around a pocket-sized copy of it. There was a fair amount published about Mr.Con’s law practice’s involvement with immigration, so in addition to parading his Gold Star status for political purposes, it didn’t Mr. Con to do a bit of onstage lobbying for his business.
If people missed all of this, his stunt a year or so later about being prevented from leaving the U.S. for a business function in Canada should tell people something about Mr. Con’s duplicity. I noticed that anonjanf managed to avoid mentioning that.
Re his/her claims stemming from anonjanf’s obsession with Trump’s I-Y status 50 years later, I’m looking forward to anonjan’s interpretation of the Selective Service records of Trump’s radiologists report and the medical evaluation that got the U-Y status.Since anonjan seems to “know” that Trump’s I-Y was illegitimate, an explanation of how that conclusion was reached should not be a problem for anonjan.
Or maybe anonjan’s conviction of his/her own superior “decency” makes him/ her feel that would be unnecessary. When that mindset is present, things like facts and evidence are trivial matters compared to what “these two” believe.

Well, for one thing, I don’t hide as “anonymous” in a sea of anonymouses. So I don’t “anonymously” lob stupid questions like that, although I can understand that your cowarduce has certain advantages for you.

There are people here with the purpose if debating issues, then there are people like L4B and anonjan and other forms of “anonymous” . I think these trolls and troll groupies should get the recognition and credit they “deserve”, so there’s no shortage of “credit” to go around.
Prior to a couple of years ago, these clowns didn’t have all that much of a presence here in these threads. It was probably inevitable that these relatively few fools would become more of nuisance here.

Tom is rightfully upset that there are now people posting here that not only disagree with him and his little circle of Trumpsters, but that also regularly kick his obsessed a.s. Personalities is really where his main interest lies though – it borders on stalking – so expecting him to be good on the issues is unrealistic.

He’s got an impossible task defending Trump’s draft avoidance and indecent dissing of numerous veterans including mocking POW/MIAs, fighting with Gold Star families, and of course bragging about things he didn’t do – giving money to the military when there’s no evidence of him even paying taxes (another thing he brags about) and his imagined bravery.

And he does bring up an important point. How can that Khan guy still be upset when his Muslim son has been dead for “10-12 years” just because Trump wanted to block Muslim immigrants. Sheeesh! The nerve of that guy. Get over it already! And that mother, pulling that act and then not saying anything? Crocodile tears!

It was an attack ad disguised as a tribute. If “anonjan” is too stupid to see through that, it’s not my problem. Perhaps anonjan also felt it was terrible that Mr.Conjob was “prevented “from leaving the country.
If a stunt like that does not tell you something about a person, then you’re beyond reach of anything that does not fit into your narrow little mind.

Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM
No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

Reply
This is absurd x 2 says: February 24, 2019 at 2:35 PM
That’s a fact, not an opinion.

At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

Reply
Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM
My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

Tom Nash says: February 24, 2019 at 2:46 PM
It always makes it easier to know which way to go when someone draws a line in the sand like Jan F. just did with her “fact”.
Usually, it takes a while for a newcomer to this site to “show their hand” as intellectually dishonest scum.
“JanF”, later ” anon, went to great lengths to immediately demonstrate how a hyper-partisan pig behaves.
Any kind of actual debate is not really possible with trash like that.

I reposted Jan F’s ( now “Anon”) Feb. 24, 2019 comment to provide some perspective on where this person (or these people) are coming from. Once someone reveals that about themselves in one of their first comments posted here, it immediately becomes clear that actual debate is impossible.
Anyone who has an interest can go back into the archives to see the mindset revealed in the very earliest comments posted by JanF-later-anon.

One does not have to “imagine” someone like that exploiting his son’s death in using it as the basis for an attack ad. I never did hear if “anonjan” felt it was equally terrible that Mr. Con was “prevented” from leaving the country”. That sounds like a story only people like anonjan could love.
And it relevant to Mr.Con’s crdeibility and character. Those paying attention to Con’s performance may remember the numerous interviews he gave at major networks after his convention attack ad. He said with a straight face that “we are private people” as he went from studio to studio.

Of course Tom cares not a lick about the President’s character and wants to focus on someone who’s character has no bearing on the fact that his Muslim son was killed in action and Trump advocated for a ban on Muslim immigration..

Jan 4, 1970 … They threaten to undermine public confidence in the draft and provide an issue … The Selective Service official who conducted the lottery Dec.

Trump could’ve gone to Canada. But he “bravely” stayed in The USA. Trump could’ve burnt his draft card. But he “courageously” carried it with him in his wallet wherever he went. Trump could’ve protested The War in Vietnam, but he “valiantly” waited until he was elected President more than 40 years later publicly to announce his opposition to the War in Vietnam.

But most bravely of all, Trump never said that the Selective Service System was rigged. That was The NYT who said that.

And in combat too so the question that comes to mind is how does a combat veteran decide to turn against her Oath of Office by becoming a Democrat excuse me socialist?

For sure she earned the right and for sure she was NOT a REMF like many but the question lingers along with why did former Marine become an ex marine? Colin Lamb.

And to think they hold the key to dumping the party leadership and turning it back into one for US Citizen instead of foreign ideologists.

Not a hard job. Just bolt the party and form your own with just enough to put Pelosi out of majority leadership and into the minority. Then build your own party one that is neither RINO no DINO but Constituionalist.

OT: Know the right people and you can make billion dollar deals with our enemies as Joe Biden’s son did. Alternatively, one charged with grand theft can get off without jail even though she had an earlier criminal offense where she got off as well.

Joe Biden’s niece dodges jail after $100K credit card scam

By Rebecca Rosenberg

The wild-child niece of former Veep Joe Biden stole more than $100,000 in a credit card scam — and quietly cut a plea deal in Manhattan court that spares her any jail time, The Post has learned.

Using a borrowed credit card, the blonde Caroline Biden set up an unauthorized customer account at Bigelow Pharmacy on Sixth Avenue in Greenwich Village, and racked up the six-figure bill over the course of a year, according to a criminal complaint that does not name the victim card owner.

As part of a plea deal before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Kevin McGrath, Biden, 29, pleaded guilty to one charge of grand larceny and another of petit larceny and agreed to make restitution of $110,810.04.

If she pays everything back and keeps her nose clean, she can return to court and enter a substitute plea to a lower, misdemeanor charge of petit larceny and be sentenced to two years probation.

But she’ll stay out of jail even if she fails to live up to the plea deal, instead getting sentenced on the felony larceny to five years probation.

Defense lawyer Ira London declined to comment.

Biden was also in Manhattan Criminal Court in 2014, on charges of resisting arrest, obstruction of justice and harassment stemming from a dustup with her Tribeca roommate.

In that case, the silver-spoon Georgetown University graduate was accused of taking a swing at a female cop who responded in Sept. 2013 to a drag out fight over unpaid rent between Biden and her roommate.

“I shouldn’t be handcuffed!” cops said Biden railed at the time. “You don’t know who you’re doing this to!”

She was given another sweetheart deal in that case: a promise that the charges would be dismissed if she stayed out of trouble for six months.

The charges were eventually dismissed and sealed.

Biden didn’t even have to show up in court to get that deal — her then-lawyer James Liguori told another Manhattan judge that she was serving her second rehab stint at Caron Renaissance Ocean Drive, a posh inpatient facility in Delray Beach, Fla.

She was there for “anger management,” her lawyer told the judge. The facility only treats anger in the context of a broader drug addiction treatment, the facility told The Post at the time.

Biden at the time had suffered from booze and pill addiction issues, friends told The Post then.

“The pressure of being Joe Biden’s niece made her totally unravel,” pal Paul Johnson Calderon told The Post in Sept. 2013. “It’s a desire for attention, a cry for help. She’s a very complicated girl who has a lot of feelings and a lot of issues.”

In the new credit card case, Biden had borrowed the unidentified victim’s Chase credit card in order to make a single purchase at Bigelow totaling $672. Instead, between April 5, 2015 and June 24, 2016, she admittedly went on a buying binge.

She was arrested and arraigned on May 5, and Friday was her second court appearance.

Caroline’s father, James Biden Sr., is the financier brother of the vice president.

Hey, this reminds me. Where’s Peter? Peter, what’s the favorite casino for Chinese in LA? Is it the Bicycle? I am planning a trip to LA sometime in the next year and may get a chance to meet a big face guy in my guanxi and I want to make sure I invite him to the right place. Let me know. It would be awkward of me to ask my other contacts, so maybe I can get a little intel from a friend online, huh?

I see that I already pointed out the second point I made about the explosion of health care costs across the board. It was in a comment to Peter less than 24 hours ago, but I guess he wasn’t paying attention.